[sailaway21]

Free's latest is unfortunately the type of argument that only serves as red meat for the true believer but, let's play it his way for a moment.

In a colossal mistake the Bush administration invades Iraq in pursuit of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Having found Saddam, some evidence of the remains of WMD's but nothing capable of current use, what should the US do?
1. Say oops and immediately pull out.
2. Continue the war and the stabilization of Iraq for new leadership, hopefully democratic in nature.
3. Admit it was really all about Saddam and not the WMD issue and withdraw immediately.
4. Nuke the place because it's obviously a quagmire.
5. Ignore the fact that al-Qaeda are flocking to Iraq to fight and kill the infidel (read, US soldiers) and withdraw immediately.

From where I am sitting those seemed to be the only options available to us at the time. As Powell said in a previous conflict, "you break it, you bought it".

Now we happen to be living in 2008 and not 2002 or 2003. If Free wants to make an argument worthy of respect he should acknowledge history. that the history since then is one of success should not cloud any vision for the future he has to offer. Many factors caused the US and the Iraqi government to achieve success and not just the surge. About the only thing that can be reliably pointed to as anti-success has been the leadership of the Democrat party. But the voters will deal with that matter.

Al-Qaeda is on the run with the Iraqi's hating them more than we do. Democracy of sorts and at least peace is breaking out all over Iraq. The Afghanistan conflict drags on but then Afghanistan is only really an issue in terms of being a homeland to al-Qaeda. It is otherwise of no strategic interest to the US. And we do not pick up our daily papers to read of more terror attacks on western nations. Something is better than it was four, six, or even eight years ago. What caused it?

The point of 4000 deaths of US servicemen and women is not without merit and is regrettable. But the point in fact is that the US military exists to protect the USA. I'd wager that if you'd polled the population of the US and asked them if they thought we'd lose 5000 men in preventing further terror attacks on the civilian populations of western democracy on or about September 11, 2001 they'd have said overwhelmingly that, while regrettable, it was a price we must be willing to pay.

Don't bother with a long response about Iraq not being Afghanistan and no al-Qaeda being there, etc... Reality is that the whole thing is part and parcel of a comprehensive addressing of our problems with the Middle East. An addressing that has been put off way too long. And we're enjoying success for the moment. If you'd like to enter 2008 you might offer thoughts on what the incoming administration plans to do about Iran because that one doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. Perhaps you might start with an offering on what we should do, after Europe and we do nothing, and Israel bombs them.

These are the issues of the day. What prompted the Iraqi invasion is no more an issue than what prompted General McClellan to sit in camp with the Army of the Potomac.

And one last point. Your assertion that 4000 men and women died in service of a lie is beneath you. Whatever you may believe those men and women died in service to their country and their sacrifice, their very willingness to sacrifice, is what allows us peace at home now, just as it always has done. I find it passing ironic that you fail to mention the deaths at the Khobar towers, the embassies, and the USS Cole while that impeached president was busy lying under oath. I guess some deaths matter more than others, eh?